We reviewed the diagnostic accuracy of SARS-CoV-2 serological tests. Random-effects models yielded a summary sensitivity of 82% for IgM, and 85% for IgG and total antibodies. For specificity, the pooled estimate were 98% for IgM and 99% for IgG and total antibodies. In populations with ≤ 5% of seroconverted individuals, unless the assays have perfect (i.e. 100%) specificity, the positive predictive value would be ≤ 88%. Serological tests should be used for prevalence surveys only in hard-hit areas.
Caini, S., Bellerba, F., Corso, F., Díaz-Basabe, A., Natoli, G., Paget, J., et al. (2020). Meta-analysis of diagnostic performance of serological tests for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies up to 25 April 2020 and public health implications. EUROSURVEILLANCE, 25(23) [10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.23.2000980].
Meta-analysis of diagnostic performance of serological tests for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies up to 25 April 2020 and public health implications
Facciotti F;
2020
Abstract
We reviewed the diagnostic accuracy of SARS-CoV-2 serological tests. Random-effects models yielded a summary sensitivity of 82% for IgM, and 85% for IgG and total antibodies. For specificity, the pooled estimate were 98% for IgM and 99% for IgG and total antibodies. In populations with ≤ 5% of seroconverted individuals, unless the assays have perfect (i.e. 100%) specificity, the positive predictive value would be ≤ 88%. Serological tests should be used for prevalence surveys only in hard-hit areas.
| File | Dimensione | Formato | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
10281-335281_VoR.pdf
accesso aperto
Tipologia di allegato:
Publisher’s Version (Version of Record, VoR)
Licenza:
Creative Commons
Dimensione
159.34 kB
Formato
Adobe PDF
|
159.34 kB | Adobe PDF | Visualizza/Apri |
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
